Still going to Tourney

[Cydkar]

You better believe that they do. Because they do.

And what exactly do you mean by "resume"? Are you referring to a team's record and the quality of their opponents?

Teams with high RPI's (low number) have been left out and teams with low RPI's (high number) have been included because their resumes dictated such. We may be arguing different things. RPI is included in the resume but it isn't the resume. I consider "resume" as the body of work. ISU could have a pretty good RPI with no road wins of merit and be left out because of that lack of road win(s). That would be a hole in the resume.

[DistrictCyclone]

Teams with high RPI's (low number) have been left out and teams with low RPI's (high number) have been included because their resumes dictated such. We may be arguing different things. RPI is included in the resume but it isn't the resume. I consider "resume" as the body of work. ISU could have a pretty good RPI with no road wins of merit and be left out because of that lack of road win(s). That would be a hole in the resume.

RPI isn't a part of the body of work; it's way of rating the body of work. It uniformly assesses the quality of a team's record and schedule relative to those of other teams, and tries to get as close to an "apples-to-apples" comparison as possible. It's not the be-all and end-all of tournament selection, as you point out, but it IS a major consideration of the selectors.

Selection 101 - NCAA.com

[Cydkar]

Let's just go back to my initial point of "RPI isn't the same as resume'."

If RPI was a team's resume then there would be no need for a committee. Just plug and chug into a spreadsheet and you have yourself an NCAA tournament bracket.

We could argue to what extent and how RPI is used in the decision (both officially and unofficially) all day.

[DistrictCyclone]

Just FYI, I'm not saying that RPI is a perfect rating system, but like it or not, it gets used. It's a pretty simple formula, really, and only looks at the winning percentage of a team and its opponents. RPI = (.5 x opponents' winning %) + (.25 x opponents' opponents' winning %) + (.25 x winning %)

A huge omission is that RPI doesn't consider the margin of victory. E.g., Miami's rout of Dook means just as much as if they'd beaten them by 1 point on a buzzer beater in the eyes of RPI. There are a lot of alternative ranking systems out there, but nothing that's as universally-used as RPI. I'm intrigued by ESPN's BPI, which they debuted last year:

BPI -The College Basketball Power Index explained - ESPN

[Cydkar]

Just FYI, I'm not saying that RPI is a perfect rating system, but like it or not, it gets used. It's a pretty simple formula, really, and only looks at the winning percentage of a team and its opponents. RPI = (.5 x opponents' winning %) + (.25 x opponents' opponents' winning %) + (.25 x winning %)

A huge omission is that RPI doesn't consider the margin of victory. E.g., Miami's rout of Dook means just as much as if they'd beaten them by 1 point on a buzzer beater in the eyes of RPI. There are a lot of alternative ranking systems out there, but nothing that's as universally-used as RPI. I'm intrigued by ESPN's BPI, which they debuted last year:

BPI -The College Basketball Power Index explained - ESPN

I know that it gets used but my poorly (very?) worded argument is that the #40 RPI team isn't a better candidate for the NCAA tournament than say the #45 or #50 just because it has a better RPI. Hence my stance that the RPI is not a team's resume. You can't look at ISU's RPI now, or at the end of the year, and say "ISU has a good/poor NCAA resume". A good RPI would leave you inclined to think that they do but it may not be the case.

[DistrictCyclone]

I know that it gets used but my poorly (very?) worded argument is that the #40 RPI team isn't a better candidate for the NCAA tournament than say the #45 or #50 just because it has a better RPI. Hence my stance that the RPI is not a team's resume. You can't look at ISU's RPI now, or at the end of the year, and say "ISU has a good/poor NCAA resume". A good RPI would leave you inclined to think that they do but it may not be the case.

I agree that RPI isn't the only thing the selection committee uses (and I've never said that it is), but it sure seems like it's used as the "baseline" for selection. Teams might get moved up or down a few spots based on factors not captured by RPI, like blowout wins or losses, but it's pretty rare for a team to be left out with a good RPI. Didn't someone say recently that there have only been a handful of top-40 RPI teams that have been left out, ever?

A slight aside, but I think this emphasis on "needing a quality road win" isn't as important as people are making it out to be. Last year, our only "quality" road win was K-State (we only beat them by 4 and they weren't ranked), and we coasted into the tournament...and we would have even if we'd lost that game.

[Cydkar]

The RPI is primarily used to categorize different teams like Top 50, or Top 25, or Top 150, to organize the quality of wins and even losses. The emphasis of any given RPI number to a team as a pure ranking is often over emphasized by the public and media (according to the NCAA's public stance. Individual bias for RPI can't be measured). By nature of the factors used to derive RPI the odds of a top 40 RPI team, from a major conference, being left out are slim.

K-State not being ranked last year is irrelevant. This is where RPI does come in. They had an RPI ranking worthy of a quality win. They may have been top 50 which is certainly considered a certain quality that poll ranking has no bearing on.

We most definitely need a top 50 road win. I shouldn't say definitely, I suppose. It ultimately depends on the quality of resumes of the teams we are being compared to at that point. It's all relative. That being said, we most definitely need a top 50 road win.

[Wesley]

Good summary, especially the overall point that ISU is not in serious danger of missing the tournament based on this season's results.

My only point of irritation is missed opportunities — even if we concede the loss at Tech as a groaner, Iowa State could have picked up at least one of at KU/at OSU, and probably should have won both (other side: Escaped pudgy home loss vs. WVa). Those two losses don't hurt, but win at least one of those, and ISU could just win out at Hilton the rest of the way and be a lock. Possibly even a lock with a loss to KU at home.

I don't like the non-home performance by this year's team, so far. Sweep OU, KSU or Baylor, beat KU, Tech and TCU at home — split the others — IN.

You need a finisher. Who can you go to? Looks like we pick someone to go one on one when our strength is passing the ball around until we find an open shooter. In the last two minutes, we change to be something that we are not.

[DistrictCyclone]

Or one of the 6 that gets left out... Hey St. Louis is no slouch of a team.

Hey, remember that troll (probably Ellen) last night who said that St. Louis would beat Oklahoma State, and then we all called him a troll doing troll things and I laughed at him for saying St. Louis would beat Oklahoma State? Guess who just beat 9th ranked Butler?

[cyclones500]

You need a finisher. Who can you go to? Looks like we pick someone to go one on one when our strength is passing the ball around until we find an open shooter. In the last two minutes, we change to be something that we are not.

You may have answered a question I had after the OSU loss:

I wondered about the late-game dilemma — two games I wasn't able to watch, and could only track online, were KU and OSU. Game flow in both had similarities — a multi-possession advantage around the 3-minute mark. In both cases, it appeared Iowa State did what it took to have an upper hand at venues where (historically) the deck is usually stacked. So what went wrong to be able to finish the job?

Using only those two examples, is it the go-to player? Is the coaching-prep spot-on, but a strategic liability down the stretch? Does the team have good chemistry but collective mental lapse during crunch time?

[cyclones500]

As for the exchange involving Cydkar and DistrictCyclone, you're both correct to a large extent -- you've met closer to consensus by this point. It's a perfect distillation about the imperfect (but typically reliable) selection process.


In a way you both addressed the difficulty of assessing “unbaised” computer numbers vs. quality of results vs. entirety of schedule.


A related exercise. Resist homer-bias if you can, and compare the following resumes. But first, ignore the RPI/SOS numbers (we’ll get to that shortly).

Resume comparison


1. Compare the W-L within the categories of 1-50/151-100, et al.


2. Consider rankings of teams within those categories, whether it’s a win or loss and where the games were played.


3. Based on those two results, decide which team is currently more tournament-worthy.


4. Compare the RPI and SOS of each team.


Did your degree of separation between the teams change drastically between steps 3 & 4?

[Cydkar]

As for the exchange involving Cydkar and DistrictCyclone, you're both correct to a large extent -- you've met closer to consensus by this point. It's a perfect distillation about the imperfect (but typically reliable) selection process.


In a way you both addressed the difficulty of assessing “unbaised” computer numbers vs. quality of results vs. entirety of schedule.


A related exercise. Resist homer-bias if you can, and compare the following resumes. But first, ignore the RPI/SOS numbers (we’ll get to that shortly).

Resume comparison


1. Compare the W-L within the categories of 1-50/151-100, et al.


2. Consider rankings of teams within those categories, whether it’s a win or loss and where the games were played.


3. Based on those two results, decide which team is currently more tournament-worthy.


4. Compare the RPI and SOS of each team.


Did your degree of separation between the teams change drastically between steps 3 & 4?

I think comparing team resumes at this point in time is futile. Both ISU and OU have opportunities to drastically improve or damage (or remain about the same) their resume so a snapshot dosn't really mean much. Both teams pretty much know what they have to do from this point on.

[dahliaclone]

This conference will not have six teams. The non conference season screwed that.

Wanna bet?

[Wesley]

Wanna bet?

Yes. Too many times in the past that last bubble team has missed and was NIT bound.
Using the current trend, the 5th place team will be OSU or ISU. We need to pick up some momentum and win three in a row. I say this because we have been just terrible in B12 tournament. When those other teams get desperate/physical and the refs blow their whistles, we are usually on the wrong end. Let's get in a position where we do not have to win a tournament game to make the NCAA.

[BigBake]

The big 12 will get 6 teams if the top 6 can separate themselves from the bottome half.